> Will it be science which solves the problem?
> Ask yourself does government control science or
> science control government?
In some instances govm't seems to be in control. But it can be argued that science drives govm't. Science will solve the food, water, and resource shortages. ie; advancements in farming, desalination, constructing high rise homes, mass transportation, etc. However, as long as govm't protects the petroleum industry, advancement in alternative fuels will not develope and we will have a future fuel problem until the strong arm of the richest industry in the world is broken. Which comes down to the wealthy petroleum investors giving up their castles.
> discovery of Evolution of fertility rates means this...
> evolution defined as..."the gradual development of
> something, especially from a simple to a more
> complex form."
> Fertility rate is defined as..."The number of
> children who would be born per woman (or per 1,000
> women) if she/they were to pass through the
> childbearing years bearing children according to a
> current schedule of age-specific fertility
You could have just explained it in your own words. I don't see how "evolution" applies to the birth rate. Impregnation has evolved thanks to medical advancements.
> Some believe the declining trend in the "evolution
> of fertility rate" to the current 2.5 per woman
> slows but doesn't stop the upward trend in
> population growth.
> In the USA for example the fertility rate has
> evolved to 1.76 which is below the replacement
> rate of 2.1.
> Now this raises a lot of problems and questions.
> For example if this decline continues should the
> U.S. government reduce abortions to increase a
> declining fertility rate?
Sorry to break this to you, but the govm't will never be able to reduce abortions. They will never control the woman's decision to that degree. Now if they increase contraception availability, then yes abortions will lower. The decrease in family size is solely a result of finances. Couples can no longer afford for mom to stay home with the kids which means less kids. She has to work and so cannot have as many kids. And even if dad has a high enough income to support a family, women are deciding to have careers to pursue their own purpose in life which is fast becoming a purpose outside of the home.
> Which raises the question can the U.S. government
> take this action without one or both parties
> suffering defeats in elections if they support
> this action?
Nope, I don't think so.
> Which circles around to the question is our
> present forms of government or ideas of governing
> adequate to meet possible or probable futures?
The govm't is inadequate simply because it is male dominated. When there is an equal number of women in govm't, there will be changes. Only then will the govm't be able to address the problems.
BUT whatever point you're trying to address is lost in confusion. You talk of overpopulation depleting the resources necessary to sustain the numbers, but then cite a decline in birth rate. If no one procreated from this day forward the population would decrease. So I guess you're asking how is birth controlled so as not to exceed our CURRENT resource production. You are presuming our current methods of production (food etc) will remain as is and the population will increase thereby creating a problem. But our methods of production have never been stagnant. Basic ex: we needed steel in the industrial age and science complied. Science gave us steel, then made it stronger and easier to produce.
You underestimate our production capability. And you assume the balance of govm't power will remain on the male side.